SteveVH

I really don't know what they use in the Philippines or who has authority in that case. The NAB is a relatively new translation. Now, keep in mind that we are certainly allowed to read any version of the Bible that has been approved. In other words, we would never use the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT version as it has been overtly corrupted. We would use the KJV, providing it contains all of the books canonized by the Church. There is some bias, I would say, as the KJV represents the Reformation which is still a sore point. I have taken classes where we might have three or four versions around the table. Some translations may capture a particular meaning better then others. The official version (New American Bible) is for the very purpose of matching the language in the American lectionary. Also keep in mind that there are definately some priests who will to do their own thing regardless. I'm not sure how loose they are in the Philippines. The doctrines of our Church are not based upon some translation of the Bible, however, so in the end the teachings are the same, regardless of the text being used.

First of all, Traveler, I apologize for not being around these parts for awhile. My work has kept me way too busy. Yes, evil is an interesting subject, a mystery, really. To answer the question as to why or how an intelligent being could choose evil I think we need to look no further than ourselves. Each and every time we sin, we choose evil over good. Why? It may offer us a brief moment of pleasure. It may promise a life of wealth. Whatever the allure of sin or evil, we give in due to the weakness of our flesh, or our pride or our selfishness. Unfortunately, it has little to do with intelligence, in my opinion. Or might it be something other than intelligence that is the cause? I don't know about Mormon theology concerning the angels but Catholics believe that Lucifer was created with perfect intelligence. It was not his intelligence, but rather his pride that caused him to fall. Yes, I think I see where you're going with this, but I still maintain that intelligence has little or nothing to do with keeping one from sin. As a matter of fact, it may even lead one closer to sin in some ways. My point is this. I think it is nearly impossible for a mentally handicapped person to sin or commit evil. By its very nature, evil requires an intelligent choice. If I am simply tricked, with no consent on my part, then I have not committed evil. Intelligence brings pride, a greater imagination, maybe stronger desires in some areas. I know that, at least in my Church, the degree of one's intelligence says nothing about their holiness. One can be very simple and lead a very holy life, and that is what counts in the end. When we are made new in the resurrection, we will have perfect intelligence and perfect holiness as well. Its a very interesting topic, Traveler. I'll give it some more thought. We explain the whole thing through original sin which changed our human nature to one that tends toward sin. It is a struggle for us not to sin. After the resurrection we will not have this with which to deal. God bless.

Thanks annatess. Your intellectual honesty is admirable. Its a common misrepresentation which is usually made by Christian Fundamentalists. I think it probably is due to the fact that Catholic churches have traditionally been adorned with paintings, stained glass and statues. When one observes a pious Catholic kneeling before one of the statues in prayer it is understandable that one might get the wrong impression. What that person is actually doing is no different than one looking at a photograph of a loved one who has passed away. We believe that we are not separated from our loved ones by death and that we can ask them to pray for us just as we would ask someone here on earth to pray for us. We consider the saints in heaven as our family, our loved ones. Kneeling is just a physical posture of prayer. We don't worship statues nor the people they might represent, but it is understandable that people might get that impression without having it explained.

Actually, the "graven images" command is part of the command to worship no other gods. "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them" This is not a command against art. It is a command against worshiping anything other than the one, true God. In the Holy of Holies the Arc of the Covenant had two cherubim molded from gold which sat atop it. Holding the position that the command prohibits making anything in the image of something else is going to far. We would have to dispose of photographs of our loved ones, the paintings hanging in our homes, etc. I have never been in the Temple in SLC but I hear it is beautiful and I am sure that there must be some art hanging around. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As for the difference in coveting one's goods and coveting one's wife, these are definitely two different commands because they address two different things. Desiring my neighbor's car is a far cry from desiring his wife.

In the United States every Diocese and therefore every parish must use the NAB version. This is subject to change but the authority is in the hands of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, not each parish priest. I personally prefer the Douay-Rheims as it is closest to the Latin.

Traveler, the first sin was committed by Lucifer. That was the origin of evil. Lucifer (now Satan) tempted our first parents to rebel against God just as he had done. Out of their own self-interest they fell for the lie and disobeyed God. So man is capable of committing evil. This doesn't mean he was created to commit evil. It means he was created as a free being capable of making his own choices, evil being one of those choices. Scripture tells us that evil comes from the heart of man: "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23, KJV) Evil, like good, is always a choice but we are not forced to choose either way. That is our decision. As I have explained several times, the reason we must have free will is so that we may love. That is God's ultimate purpose for our creation. One cannot love unless one is capable of choosing not to love. Love's very existence depends upon a choice; it cannot exist independently of a choice. God made us capable of choosing love each and every time. Because we fail often, out of his love for us he came to save us from our sins. But he did not create the evil within us. That, as Scripture tells us, is of our own making. Thanks for pointing that out. I'll be more careful. Whenever I am stating what I believe to be LDS doctrine I am always open to correction and usually state just that. But honestly, Traveler, it seems that the knowledge and opinions of just what does make up LDS doctrine are so varied among LDS members that it is difficult to put a finger on. You have no equivalency to the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", for instance, that details every belief and doctrine of our Church. If I quote one of your prophets, for example, I am then told that he wasn't speaking as a prophet at that time, or that it wasn't approved. So what I put down is my understanding based upon multible conversations with Mormons. I certainly have no interest in making things up. The reality is more than enough to discuss. As far as discussing LDS beliefs with others, I certainly do and will continue and I will not refrain from trying to explain your beliefs. Believe it or not, I find myself correcting non-Mormons more often than agreeing with them. I have a lot of material, Traveler, even from this thread alone. I do my best to honestly present it when the discussion arises. That being said, yes, there is no doubt that I carry a certain amount of bias. I think it is impossible not to. But I am aware of my bias and I think that is important. Thank you for admitting your own bias. We must always keep it in the equation. God bless.

Honestly, sometimes I feel that I am having a conversation with someone from another planet. Here is the question to which I was responding: If one was created to only make good choices, one would not have a choice, would they? What in the world is so difficult to understand about that? In fact, we are only truly free when we do good, but good can only exist if there is a choice to be made. When one chooses good, he becomes more free. When one chooses sin (evil) he becomes a slave and is not free. But unless one has the choice to choose between them then free will cannot be exercised. As far as God being the only free Person I would agree. And yes, He makes only good choices. But you are not God and neither am I. We have to deal with evil in the world and in our lives due to the choice of our first parents which is continued by our own choices. God gave us free will precisely so that we would be capable of choosing to love. That was and is His desire. But there is a catch. If one must be free to choose to love in order for love to even exist, then at the same time one must be free to choose not to love. That is called sin. Well, we believe that Jesus' mother Mary was born without sin and remained so throughout her entire life. But the answer to your question is that certainly God could create beings that do not sin. We do not have to sin. But we do, you and I sin each and every day and this is by our own choice. If it was not through our own, free choice, it would not be sin. And love, if not through our own, free choice, is not love. The all important thing here though is that we have received "GOOD NEWS". Jesus Christ has conquered sin and death and offers us salvation. Who says God can't? The point is he didn't. For love to exist we must be able to choose to love rather than to sin. Love is so important to the whole equation that it is worth the possibility of one making another choice. Well, I believe I have answered the question, more than a few times. My argument is very simple, Traveler. It is not that I have not explained it, it is that you are either incapable of grasping it or you choose not accept it. God created rational, free-willed beings who, of their own accord, are capable of making their own choices. We can, and many times do choose good. We also, on a regular basis, choose evil or sin. God does not make us choose either way, otherwise we would not be free. It is self-evident to every human being that we make our own choices. God cannot be complicit in the choice of a free being. Why you cannot grasp this is beyond me. Traveler, thanks for the conversation. This is beginning to get old and we really aren't going anywhere. I can accept that you believe you exist apart from God, that you are an eternal being, that you believe God is nothing more than you, just further advanced in the line of progression. What I have learned is that our beliefs are further apart than I first believed. It is why the Catholic Church considers Mormon theology to be so far from Christianity that it is not even heretical, but rather a different religion altogether. I think I better understand how they arrived at that conclusion. Thanks and God bless you and everyone else on this forum. Stephen

Not so. If one can only make good choices he is not a free being, but rather a robot with no choice at all. In your opinion Well I'm glad you find it attrtactive. I find the idea to be heretical. The idea diminishes the power of God, as if there are things in this universe over which he has no control. The idea diminishes the glory and majesty of God as the only uncreated, eternal being. Again, not true. God is responsible for the existence of mankind, and of everything that exists, except evil. God certainly, mysteriously, allows evil to exist. But the origin of evil is not God, but Lucifer, as a consequence of a choice made by his own free will to rebel against God. Evil is always a possibility among rational, free-willed beings. One might say that God created the possibility for evil to exist which is implicit in one being free to choose good or evil. But God does not create evil nor is ever complicit in evil. Evil comes from satan and the heart of man. The "Good News" is that God, through the sacrifice and death of his only begotten Son, has defeated evil. We can be saved from our own evil, not through some sort of eternal progression, but by the grace of a loving God.

I would completely disagree with your definition. Free will is the rational ability to choose between good and evil. That is why a man is guilty of sin even though he has not carried out the act. For example, we can look at Jesus' words "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28) Free will was exercised even though the desire of that will was not attained, thus the man is guilty of adultery even though it was not committed in deed, but rather in desire. Freedom to carry out one's will is a separate question. Being prevented from attaining the desire of one's will does not prevent one from choosing that which they desire. Ex nihilo creation does not assume that God created each individual's desire. The very definition of free will impies that each individual is responsible for their own desires because they are free beings. God did not create us and make us subject to desires which he created within us, as if we had no choice in the matter. Why is it so difficult to believe that God, being all-powerful, could not create a free being who makes his own choices and is responsible for his own choices? And once again it comes down to the issue of premortal existence. We will never agree on this issue and I think we've about beaten it to death. I do appreciate the conversation and sharing of our ideas and beliefs, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. It comes down to the most basic and fundamental beliefs about who we are and who God is and that is why premortal existence is a doctrine that separates the LDS from the rest of Christianity.

Traveler, with all due respect I think it is you who needs to define what you are talking about when you speak of free will and your belief that free will varies between people. BadWolf is asking the same question I asked. One other thing, using your example of choosing to live or die, are you saying that one's free will is impaired because someone may stop another from taking their own life? If one has chosen to die, they have excercised their free will whether or not they actually get to acconplish it. A better way to understand this is to look at the nature of sin. If one chooses to have a sexual relationship outside of their marriage but is prevented from doing so due to outside circumstances they have still sinned because they, of their own free will, chose to sin. Maybe you could explain a little further. Thanks. If one attempts to

I don't understand this view at all. If one is "free" to makes one's own choices, how can that freedom vary from individual to individual. Freedom is a sate of being. When the slaves were freed, their freedom did not vary from slave to slave. When one has "free will" it means that we were created with a rational mind and are inherently capable of choosing one path or another. Now intellectual capacity certainly varies between people, but not their ability to make a choice concerning good and evil, relative to their intellect. Maybe you could explain how free will can vary between people. Are you saying that a person with a mental impairment, for instance, is less capable of making choices than someone with a healthy mind? This is a truth that cannot be denied, however one's culpability regarding sin is also diminished to the extent that one is impaired. Many, if not most mentally impaired people are still capable of loving. One thing we do not have to worry about is God's incredible mercy.

Yes, this would be the difference in our views. I think premortal existence is the key to understanding most differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity and is the primary reason that we will probably never reconcile these differences. It is also something that is rarely taken into consideration when trying to understand each other's viewpoints.

The Catholic perspective is that Lucifer was created as the highest and most beautiful of angels. Angels, like humans, are rational beings with the gift of free will, though they are pure spirit, as opposed to physical beings such as humans. Lucifer, through his own will, refused to submit to God's plan of salvation for the simple reason that he would be subject to a God who lowered himself to become human. The scriptures tell us that we will be over the angels. This is something Lucifer could not accept and therefore he rebelled against God and 1/3 of the angels rebelled with him. So satan's origin and purpose, like ours, was to love and worship the living God. Through his own free will he decided otherwise. We do the same, each and every time we sin, but we have been given the gift of "time" which allows us to repent and reconclile with God. Lucifer's decision was made in eternity and was immediate. His decision was eternal. So God did not create Lucifer for the purpose of bringing evil into the world any more than he created us so that we might sin. We were all created for the purpose of loving and worshiping God, but through our own choice, not because we are forced to do so. Given this choice, to love or not to love God, sin and death entered into our world requiring a Savior in order to accomplish God's plan. The element, I believe, that causes the disconnect in our views is the notion of premortal existence as opposed to ex nihilo creation. If I am correct, the LDS position is that Lucifer, like us, existed from eternity, apart from God. The traditional Christian view is that Lucifer is a created spiritual being who did not exist until God created him and brought him into existence. The LDS argument is that if ex nihilo creation is true then God is responsible for the evil, after all he created the beings that commit evil with full knowledge that this would happen. The traditional Chrisitian view is that those who were created with free will are responsible for their own actions. God did not create us to be evil. He created us with free will so that we might love, even knowing that we might choose otherwise and commit evil.

My only question would be, if you and another person are obedient and therefore infallible in understanding scripture, yet disagree with each other, would not this very fact be evidence that this principle cannot be at work? I know without question that Mormons have very different understandings among themeselves. I read Scripture daily and receive incredible grace from doing so. But I will never come to a substantive decision on interpretation without consulting the teachings of my Church.

According to who? According to those who depend upon the apostasy in order to justify their very existence? I would expect nothing less from those who have chosen to believe the claims of Joseph Smith, but that in itself does not make this pre-conceived notion true in the least. What this all really boils down to is the Mormon belief that continued revelation is necessary, thus the need for "Apostles" to receive and disseminate modern revelation. Maybe that is the real question to be discussed. If modern revelation is necessary then it follows that the Church would need these so-called "Apostles". If modern revelation is unnecessary, then it would follow that there is no need for modern "Apostles". Would you agree? The real question is why do you assume that continual scriptural revelation is necessary for the Church in the first place? You will not find that taught in scripture. Is not your source for this assumption the fact that Mormonism claims that there must always be scriptural revelation? If so, then you have not posed a real problem for Catholics or anyone else, since the dilemma only arises from presupposing a Mormon understanding of revelation. I don't grant the assumption that makes this question a problem. A better answer, however, is that there is warrant from Scripture itself so show that the presence of continual scriptural revelation is not intrinsic to the operations of divine authority. For instance, we have no reason to believe that there was any Scripture in the time of the patriarchs or before them. There were divine covenants and valid priestly offerings, but no special texts. (Of course, Mormonism claims Abraham wrote scripture, but again, you would have to appeal to your own principles, assuming Mormonism from the outset in order to make that argument.) However, even if we accept the Mormon assumptions, we know that there was a Levitical priesthood operating in Israel during the so-called intertestamental period ( the approximate four hundred year period, between the ministry of Malachi (c. 420 BC), who was the last of the Old Testament prophets, and the appearance of John the Baptist in the first century A.D.). This is clear from the fact that Zacharias not only serves in the Temple but gets a revelation there in Luke 1. The New Testament teaches that "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached." (Luke 16:16) This passage poses a problem for anyone who thinks that the same rules that make scriptural revelation normative in the Church would be the same in the new covenant as in the old. According to Catholicism, the reason there does not need to be new Scripture is that the definitive revelation of God is not a text but the person of Christ himself. The Incarnation as such contains all the truth that God has for man. This is not to say that it exhausts the truth and limits our potential knowledge, but the exact opposite: it points out that an infinite content has already been communicated by God. That is why the author of Hebrews writes, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." In other words, Jesus is the final and comlplete revelation of God to mankind. Clearly a change in the mode of divine speech is indicated here, and no theology about the nature of revelation can afford to overlook it. Yet your assumptions demand that we overlook it, for you are claiming a kind of eternal necessity for new scripture that does not fit with the Biblical teaching. This has nothing at all to do with history, but rather the acceptance of the Mormon presumption that modern revelation, and therefore, modern prophets are necessary. Not. You are accusing me of knowingly making an untrue claim. What you are really saying is "You are lying". Let me be very clear here. While I may mis-state something, or at times just be in error as to my understanding, I will never knowingly lie to you. Now lets get on to your next statement. Everything you have said here is true. So what? We have civil unrest based upon a theological principle, the origin of which was the Arian heresy. So we have a secular leader interested in bringing peace to his empire, thus requesting the bishops to meet and put an end to the discord, once and for all. We are not sure of the communications between Pope Sylvester and Constantine prior to the Council but as to whether or not the Pope was in agreement with the Council is evident from the fact that he sent two Roman priests, Victor and Vincentius, to represent him there. Constantine never intended on having input to the theological discussion and it is highly doubtful that he had any real grasp of the significance of the Arian heresy anyway. He just wanted peace. Nevertheless, the bishops did not meet due to some state of confusion as to just which doctrine was to be believed. At least 300 bishops gathered for the purpose of defining doctrine in the face of the Arian heresy. All but two of the bishops agreed to the formulation of faith put forth in the Nicene Creed, believing that it inerrantly summarized the ancient faith of the Apostolic Church, specifically the relation and nature of the Persons of the Trinity. The two (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais), who did not agree were summarily exiled and anathematized along with Arius. It was a hearing and the Council gave Arius his day in court, if you will. There were plenty of bishops who arrived that had little if any knowledge of the theological arguments of Arius. It was only proper that they be laid out on the table if an honest assessment was to be made of their continuity with the Apostolic faith. As I have already stated, the Pope had two representatives at the Council. They assisted the president, Hosius of Cordova, in overseeing the Council. You need to read about the Council of Jerusalem in the Book of Acts and then tell me that there's no considering of opinions. In any event, epistles of the New Testament were not the product of a Council so we can hardly compare the two. Even today, if we have a rogue bishop whose teachings do not comport with the Apostolic faith, the Pope has the authority to chastise and excommunicate them without calling a Council. In addition to the Arius matter, there were twenty canons that were approved at the Council of Nicea and I guarantee that there was much discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, the fact that there was discussion and debate does not negate the fact that the Church gathered to specifically define what the Church had always believed in the face of one who challenged those beliefs. And as I have pointed out there was almost perfect unanimity (298 out of 300) among the bishops which is not evidence of confusion, but rather clarity and unity of belief. Yes, but you must begin with the presupposition that the apostasy occurred. I don't, nor do I believe history comes close to supporting the proposition.

Anatess, the entire idea that new "Apostles" are needed is a novel idea, all of about 175 years old, out the over 2000 years of Christian history. What you fail to acknowledge is that the Twelve Apostles, including Matthias, who replace Judas, are unique as the foundation of the Church. There were never to be any more Apostles. Why do you think that it is impossible for the Apostles to pass on their authority to the bishops? Maynard has already made the point of exactly what was past on to Matthias: "let another his bishoprick take." The Apostles stand unique because they, and only they were the foundation of the Church and it was their teachings on which the Church would be based. The Church would therefore be Apostolic in nature. The office of bishop in the Catholic Church is an apostolic office, each one being able to trace his succession back to one of the Apostles. No other religious community can make that claim. You have been misinformed as to the purpose of the various Councils. They were not convened in order to straighten out confusion as to doctrine. They were convened to defend and specifically define doctrines already held, in the face of heresy. Yes, there have been bishops and priests who have been heretical, but the heresies were defeated and the apostolic teachings remained protected. Only when a bishop is in communion with the greater body of bishops under the direction and authority of the Pope, can he teach legitimately in the name of the Church. We have had rogue bishops and the remedy is excommunication with the hope and prayer that they will repent and return to the Church. You are aware that Judas betrayed Christ and Peter denied him three times. The Church is protected by the power of the Holy Spirit, whether its enemies come from within or without.

Well, he was not one of the Twelve, obviously. They had a unique function, as I have said. They represented the 12 tribes of Israel and were the foundation upon which the Church was founded. The requirements for belonging to that exclusive club limit membership to the Twelve members at the time of Pentecost, the birth of the Church. They would not be replaced, rather they would be succeeded in terms of authority by the bishops which they ordained, and so on. As for Paul, he was also given a unique role, directly from Jesus Christ. His influence and work was just as important, but he did not occupy the same position as the Twelve. Before preaching he sought approval from the Apostles. Barnabas was also called an "apostle" and he did great things. The Book of Revelation recognizes the Twelve, and no others.

Who said the President is not necessary? The President in this case is Jesus Christ. The Apostles did not have authority on their own. It was given to them by Christ and then by the Apostles to the bishops. The authority given is the authority of Christ, first given to the Twelve. Yep. And Christ rules over our bishops, through the Holy Spirit, guiding them into all truth, as he promised he would, so that they don't give out different messages. No, the Father chose Peter and it can be easily demonstrated that he was first among the Apostles. So his successor is first among the bishops. There is no inconsistency here.

More like 2000 years, but who's quibbling. Why would the Church have to explain anything when the question has never arisen? It has always been understood that the twelve Apostles held a unique role in the Church as the foundation and that they past their authority on to the bishops. Because of the uniqueness of the Twelve, this was not an "office", if you will, to be filled. Those who walked with Christ and witnessed the resurrection were limited. There is no need for a second "foundation" once the first has been laid. This is a modern notion beginning with the Adventist movement and borrowed by the LDS and is a very recent blip on the screen of Christian history. So the Church has never given an explanation because none was ever required. That does not mean an explanation does not exist. I have just given you one. You are asking me to believe that Christ could not forsee this happening or that he founded his Church with the full knowledge that it would utterly fail within 60 to 70 years. Now you are free to believe what ever you wish, but I do not find this in the least convincing. I know that Joseph Smith believed Christ's own Church to have failed as he prided himself on having succeeded even beyond Christ: "Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet . . . " (History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 408-409). I agree, they were not inept, they knew exactly what they were doing. That is the LDS position, but that is all it is. The reason there were twelve Apostles is that they represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This was to be the foundation of the Church. Judas had apostasized, therefore he needed to be replaced so that there were twelve witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection upon which the Church would founded. They chose Matthias and the group of twelve was whole again as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the upper room. It was then, at Petecost, that the Church was born, having as its foundation the Twelve, representing the twelve tribes of Israel. By the very nature of the case, since we would not always have witnesses to Christ's life and resurrection, (the requirement for being an Apostle) this unique role would be impossible to continue and unncecessary. The authority given to the Apostles was passed down to the bishops. And what was to stop them from doing this? One in authority, by its very definition, has the power to grant that authority. Christ gave his authority to the Apostles. The Apostles gave this authority to the bishops. It remains the authority of Christ. It is no different than the president of a government giving authority to his embassadors to enter into various agreements with other countries. They are acting with the authority of the President. The bishops are the embassadors of Christ and act with the authority of Christ. So you are saying that you just don't trust the Scritpures. If we don't have some basis of truth on which we can rely then we cannot have a discussion. So you will use Scripture when it helps your position and then claim that it is inadequate when it does not support your position. So the Scriptures are either incomplete or just plain wrong on this count. And all because they do not agree with your preconceived notion. Okay......... Yes, for such a foundational belief I have never seen such a wide array of views on how this actually came about. For some Mormons the apostasy occurred imediately upon the death of the last Apostle. For others it was more gradual. In order to agree with your point one first has to agree that the BoM is true. You are correct, the BoM did not come from any church, it came from a man (or men depending on whose story one wishes to believe) who made a claim that he received it from on high. One needs to decide if his claim was credible. You find it credible, I find it incredible.

And yet we have literally tens of thousands of denominations all praying to the Holy Spirit in great sincerity for a correct understanding, and yet all disagreeing with each other. That is a simple, objective truth. We see little to no progress toward unity in doctrine; indeed, we have just the opposite happening; a continued splintering. We might also say that the Spirit and truth are complimentary and are never at odds. If this is true then it is also true that the various denomination's versions of truth which contradict each other cannot be of the Spirit, but are rather due to man's own misinterpretation, imagination and motivation.

I'll answer this question with the caveat that not everything we need to know is in Scripture. However, the principle behind the comment is in scripture; that being that he gave authority to his Church to bind and loose, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. He desired unity in his Church, not everyone interpreting the scriptures and arriving at doctrines for themselves, as we have today outside of the Catholic Church. The Apostles were adamant that their followers not accept any gospel unless it had been given by them or by those they sent, even if an angel of God was to give it to them. Why? Because of the certainty of human error creeping in when acting outside of Church's authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church had been given the authority to correctly interpret the word of God. Of course at that time, they were only interpreting the Old Testatment as the New Testament had not yet been canonized. The Apostles, and their successors, interpreted the Old Testament in light of the Revelation of Christ and were the authentic interpreters of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing, but does not contain everything taught by the Apostles. That which is not in the Sacred Scriptures is alive and active in the life, liturgy and teachings of the Church. The point is, for God to give us his inspired words also requires an authoritative interpreter, otherwise the truth contained in the Scripture; the very purpose for its existence, is lost. The thousands of denominations today, all relying on their own interpretation and claiming the possession of the truth, while all disagreeing with each other as to what that truth is, is evidence in itself of the validity of the words of John Henry Newman. He is stating an objective truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not each person's private notions of what truth may be. That is why the statment that "the inspred nature of Scritpure requires as its compliment, an infallible interpreter" is true. I think you also believe in the infallible interpretation and teaching of your prophets, do you not?

I'll answer this question with the caveat that not everything we need to know is in Scripture. However, the principle behind the comment is in scripture; that being that he gave authority to his Church to bind and loose, while being guided by the Holy Spirit. He desired unity in his Church, not everyone interpreting the scriptures and arriving at doctrines for themselves, as we have today outside of the Catholic Church. The Apostles were adamant that their followers not accept any gospel unless it had been given by them or by those they sent, even if an angel of God was to give it to them? Why? Because of the certainty of human error creeping in when acting outside of Church's authority and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Only the Church had been given the authority to correctly interpret the word of God. Of course at that time, they were only interpreting the Old Testatment as the New Testament had not yet been canonized. The Apostles, and their successors, interpreted the Old Testament in light of the Revelation of Christ and were the authentic interpreters of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The New Testament was that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing, but does not contain everything taught by the Apostles. That which is not in the Sacred Scriptures is alive and active in the life, liturgy and teachings of the Church. The point is, for God to give us his inspired words also requires an authoritative interpreter, otherwise the truth contained in the Scripture; the very purpose for its existence, is lost. The thousands of denominations today, all relying on their own interpretation and claiming the possession of the truth, while all disagreeing with each other as to what that truth is, is evidence in itself of the validity of the words of John Henry Newman. He is stating an objective truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not each person's private notions of what truth may be. That is why the statment that "the inspred nature of Scritpure requires as its compliment, an infallible interpreter" is true. I think you also believe in the infallible interpretation and teaching of your prophets, do you not?

God is eternal and lives in eternity. He is omniscient; he know everything that has ever happened and ever will happen because history unfolds at once before his eyes. So yes, he "knew" all of us before we were created. Now what choice did Jeremiah have? He had the choice to say either yes or no to what God had planned for him. God knew what his answer would be. It was the same with Mary. God had planned for eternity that Mary would be the mother of the Son of God. But she still had to say yes. God's plan did not take away her free will any more the he took away Jeremiah's free will, rather God incorporated their free will into his perfect plan.

Rather than describing a hierarchical relationship, Father and Son are terms describing a familial relationship. We are invited to become a part of this familial relationship. We can call God our Father. We can also call God our brother. We are called ulitmately to participate in the divine family of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as adopted sons and daughters of God. That is why the human family is the greatest image of God. God, in his essence, is a family.

And have you seen nothing on these threads that you would consider to be my opinion? In my opinion, John Henry Newman makes a very good point. How about that?